Haji
T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation [1987] INSC 339 (17
November 1987)
SHETTY,
K.J. (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) CITATION: 1987 SCALE (2)1067
ACT:
Indian
Contract Act, 1872: Auction-Disposal of property by State or instrumentality of
the State-Resort to private negotiation instead of public auction justified in
compulsive situations.
Constitution
of India, Article 14: Property owned by State or instrumentality of State-sale
of-Through public auction or by inviting tenders-Action to be fair and above
board-Nothing to be done to give impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism.
HEADNOTE:
%
The respondent, a State Government Corporation obtained decree for certain
amount against the appellant and in execution proceedings a tea estate was
brought for sale by court auction in 1969, but in the absence of a bidder the
respondent itself had to purchase it at a higher price. The respondent,
however, could take possession of the estate only in 1982. It then invited
tenders for the sale of the estate. The appellant offered Rs.6,00,000. The next
best offer was for Rs.4,15,550 and the third for Rs.2,07,451. The highest offer
was accepted, but the appellant could not pay the amount except the earnest
money, even after repeated extension of time and offer to receive the balance
in installments. The respondent then negotiated with the next highest bidder,
who enhanced the offer to Rs.4,50,000 which was accepted by the respondent. The
property, however, was sold to a partnership firm in which the said bidder was
a partner.
The
appellant thereupon moved the High Court complaining that the respondent in
selling the property to the firm had deviated from the normal practice of
inviting the tenders from the public and that the Corporation being a public
authority was bound to act reasonably and fairly and it ought not be have
arbitrarily selected the purchaser. The High Court declined to interfere.
Dismissing
the appeal, ^
HELD:
The action of the respondent in offering the property to the person next in
order by private negotiations and selling the same at 1080 his request to the
partnership firm was perfectly justified.
[1087G]
The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State
should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders, not only to
get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the
activities of the State and public authorities. They should act fairly. Their
actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their
transactions should be without aversion or affection and should not be
suggestive of discrimination, bias, favouritism or nepotism. Ordinarily these
facts would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by
tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There
may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such
instances must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience.
[1086H; 1087A-C] In the instant case, the respondent dealt with the property in
all fairness. It invited tenders for the sale of the property under the
notification. The appellant submitted the highest tender in response to the said
notification. He was granted all concessions and facilities for payment by
instalments but he failed. If the appellant could not act according to his
tender, there was no reason why the property should not be offered to the
person who was next in order. The respondent, therefore, did not do anything
unfair with the second bidder after it had got the tender amount raised
substantially. [1087D-F] K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore & Ors.,
[1955] 1 SCR 305 at 312; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 272;
R.D.
Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India State of Jammu and
Kashmir & Anr., [1980] 3 SCR 1338;
Fertilizer
Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344; Ram and Shyam
Company v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1985] Suppl. SCR 541 and Shri
Sachidanand Pandey v.
State
of W. B. AIR 1987 SC 1109, applied. & Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil
Appeal No. 914 of 1987.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1984 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No.
6806 of 1984.
Abdul
Khader and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
1081
G. Vishwanath Iyer, N. Sudhakaran for the Respondent.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. A tea estate of
100 acres with some buildings, machinery and equipments was given as security
to the Kerala Financial Corporation ("The Corporation") against the
loan taken by the appellant. A part of the loan remained outstanding and the
appellant could not clear it. The Corporation thereupon filed O.A. No. 8/64
before the District Court of Kottayam for recovery of the arrears and obtained
decree for an amount of Rs.1,20,000. In execution of the decree, the said tea
estate was brought for sale by court auction. On November 5, 1969, the auction
sale was held. There was no bidder. So the Corporation itself had to purchase
the property for about Rs.1,65,000. There was long standing dispute between the
workmen of the estate and the previous management relating to payment of their
wages. The Corporation therefore could not take possession of the estate. An
extent of 85 acres out of 100 acres of the estate was in possession of the
workmen as per settlement arrived at between the Labour Commissioner and the
District Collector. The workmen used to collect the income there from towards
their wages. This arrangement continued for about thirteen years. On January 7,
1982, the Corporation got possession of the entire estate. The Corporation
wanted to recover its amount. It was not interested in the property. It
therefore, invited tenders for the sale of the estate. On March 19, 1982, a
tender notification was published in dailies like Malayala Manorama,
Mathrubhoomi and Deepika newspapers. In response to the notification, the
daughter-in-law of the appellant was the only tenderer. She offered
Rs.5,10,505. The Corporation accepted the tender. It was subsequently found
that the daughter-in-law was no better than the appellant.
She
also could not pay any amount.
On
January 18, 1983, the Corporation again invited tenders for the sale of the
property. The notification was published in the said newspapers as it was done
earlier.
This
time, the Corporation received these tenders: (i) T.M. Hassan Rawther
(Appellant before us) for Rs. six lakhs; (ii) P.M. Jacob for Rs.4,15,550 and
(iii) K.K. Mathew for Rs.2,07,451. Since the appellant submitted the highest
offer, the Corporation naturally had to accept it. On March 2, 1983, the
acceptance was communicated to the appellant.
He
must have thanked his stars for getting back his family property which was so
dear to him or which was according to him so valuable. But there was no such
anxiety shown. He did not pay anthing except the earnest money of Rs.40,000.
1082
The Corporation, however, extended the time for payment again and again. The
Corporation also gave him installments for payment of the balance price. All
the efforts of the Corporation failed to induce the appellant.
The
Corporation wanted to get back its money. It was not interested in retaining
the property. So it negotiated with P.M. Jacob who had submitted his tender
alongwith the appellant in response to the notification dated January 18, 1983.
He had then offered Rs.4,16,550. His tender was the next best. After
negotiation, he enhanced the offer to Rs. four and a half lakhs. The
Corporation accepted it and decided to sell the property to P.M. Jacob. The
property however, was sold to M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the request of P.M.
Jacob. M/s. Gumraj Plantations is a partnership firm in which P.M. Jacob is one
of the partners.
The
appellant who could not purchase the said property by any means filed suit O.S.
No. 229/84 before the Munsif Court Thidupuzha to restrain the Corporation from
selling the property. He could not get relief in the suit since by then the sale
deed was executed in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations. Subsequently, he moved
the High Court of Kerala complaining that the Corporation while selling the
property for Rs. four and a half lakhs to M/s. Gumraj Plantations, had deviated
from the normal practice of inviting tenders from the public. He contended that
the Corporation being a public authority was bound to act reasonably and fairly
and it ought not to have arbitrarily selected the purchaser. The High Court
found no substance in those submissions. The High Court observed:
"The
submission made by the petitioner's counsel is that the decision to sell the
property by private negotiations is arbitrary and is therefore liable to be
interfered with by this court. This is clearly a case where in execution
proceedings the decree holder has purchased the property and thereafter the
property was sold in public auction to the petitioner, who purchased it for Rs.
six lakhs but failed to pay the sale amount in spite of the fact that this
court and afterwards the corporation had shown great indulgence towards the
petitioner. This is not at all a fit case for interference under Art. 226 of
the Constitution." Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal. On May 18, 1985, this Court 1083
while entertaining the appeal issued notice limited to the question whether the
sale of the property should be made by general auction. This Court further
directed that in any event, the appellant will not be allowed to participate in
the auction.
Very
interesting turn of events. The appellant who miserably failed to secure the
property for himself is now interested in securing the best price for the
Corporation.
He
says that this is public interest litigation. His case is that the Corporation
in all fairness must dispose of the property by public auction. It could not
have bargained with P.M. Jacob and sold the property to M/s. Gumraj
Plantations.
Before
the High Court, the appellant attacked the sale also on the ground that it was
actuated by extraneous considerations. He alleged that the corporation had
succumbed to the pressure of some influential persons for the sale of the
property in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations. The appellant made these
allegations but did not substantiate it. He did not give the names of
influential persons who had brought pressure on the Corporation. He did not
even state as to how the Corporation officials had shown undue interest with
P.M. Jacob or with the other partners of M/s. Gumraj Plantations for sale of
the property. It is not proper to make such light hearted and vague allegations
against the statutory authorities.
These
allegations, in our opinion, are uncharitable and unfounded.
The
only question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and in the
circumstances, the Corporation was not justified in selling the property by
private negotiations in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the instance of
P.M. Jacob. It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities
should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of
public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements
for the purpose. These principles may be taken as well established by the
following decisions of this Court: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore
and others, [1955] 1 SCR 305 at 312; (ii) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 2 SCR 272; (iii) R.D.
Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., [1979] 3 SCR
1014; (iv) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr.,
[1980] 3 SCR 1338; (v) Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India,
AIR 1981 SC 344; (vi) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1985]
Supp. SCR 541 and (vii) Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. AIR 1987 SC
1109.
1084
In R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors. [1979]
3 SCR 1014 at 1041 Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court observed:
"Now,
obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it
would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same
constitutional or public law limitations as Government. The rule inhibiting
arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally
where such corporation is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving
jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and
enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its
action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason
and relevance.
This
rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art 14. It
is now well settled as a result of the decisions of this Court in E.P. Rayappa
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that Article 14
strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be
based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory: it
must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that
would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality
which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or
non-arbitrariness is protected by Art. 14 and it must characterise every State
action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power
without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering
into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action
must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-
discriminatory." In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K,
[1980] 3 SCR 1338 at 1355 Bhagwati, J. again speaking for the Court reiterated
what he said earlier to R.D. Shetty case. The learned Judge went on to state:
1085
"Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest; the
Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action
would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or
leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it
would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touch-stone of
reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it
would be unconstitutional and invalid." The learned Judge continued (at p.
1357):
"But
one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination
on this question is that there is always a presumption that the Governmental
action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging
its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed
with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to
the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot
lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without
public interest because as we said above, there are a large number of policy
considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking
action and therefore, the Court would not strike down governmental action as
invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is
unreasonable or not in public interest.
But
where it is so satisfied it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the
Constitution to invalidate the governmental action. This is one of the most
important functions of the Court and also one of the most essential for
preservation of the rule of law." In Fertilizer Corporation case (AIR 1981
SC 344 at 350 this Court speaking through Chandrachud, C.J., observed:
"We
want to make it clear that we do not doubt the bona fides of the authorities,
but as far as possible, sales of public property, when the intention is to get
the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily
bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the public at least gets
the satisfaction that the Government has 1086 put all its cards on the table.
In the instant case, the officers who were concerned with the sale have
inevitably, though unjustifiably attracted the criticism that during the course
of negotiations the original bid was reduced without a justifying cause. We had
willy-nilly to spend quite some valuable time in satisfying ourselves that the
reduction in the price was a necessary and fair consequence of the reduction in
the quantity of the goods later offered for sale on March 31, 1980. One cannot
exclude the possibility that a better price might have been realised in a fresh
public auction but such possibilities cannot vitiate the sale or justify the
allegations of malafides." In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West
Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 at 1133, O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. after considering
almost all the decisions of this Court on the subject summarised the
propositions in the following terms:
"On
a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following
propositions may be taken as well established: State owned or public owned
property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive.
Certain percepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount
consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest when it is
considered necessary to dispose of a property is to sell the property by public
auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an
invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons
necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure
must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of
public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which
gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism." After applying these
tests, the learned Judge finally upheld the action of West Bengal Government in
not inviting tenders, or in not holding a public auction but negotiating
straightway at arms length with Taj Group of Hotels for giving about four acres
of land for establishing a five star hotel.
The
public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State
should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting 1087 tenders. This
Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for
the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and
public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be
legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be
without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination.
Nothing
should be done by them which give an impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism.
Ordinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public
auction or sale by tenders. That is why the Court repeatedly stated and
reiterated that the State owned properties are required to be disposed of
publicly. But that is not the only rule. As O.Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed
"that though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable
rule." There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but
then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It
must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience.
What
is the position in the present case. Here is a case where the Corporation
invited tenders for the sale of the property under notification dated January
18, 1983. The appellant submitted the highest tender in response to the said
notification. He was given all concessions for payment of the tender amount.
But he did not. He negotiated with the Managing Director of the Corporation for
facilities for payment by installments. That was also granted to him. There
again he failed. If the appellant could not act according to his tender, we
fail to see why the property should not be offered to the person who was next
in order. The Corporation, in our opinion, did not do anything unfair with
P.M.Jacob. The Corporation got the tender amount raised from Rs.4,16,550 to
Rs.4,50,000. It shows the fairness with which the Corporation dealt with the
property.
On
a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the action of the Corporation in offering the property to
P.M.Jacob and selling the same at his request to M/s. Gumraj Plantations was
perfectly justified and cannot be found fault with In the result the appeal
fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to
costs.
P.S.S.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
